Agenda item

Demolition of existing dwelling and shed and construction of two storey detached dwelling including basement level with swimming pool and accommodation in the roofspace served by rear dormer window and front/side/rear rooflights, side solar panels with associated heatpump, access, bin and bike store, parking and landscaping works; erection of rear outbuilding including double garage at

Recommendation: That planning permission be granted.

Adam Ralton, Development Management Team Leader provided the following update:

Paragraph 7.3 .6 of the report makes reference to the need for screening to be provided to the sides of the raised patio, and that screening to be secured by condition. However, officers have omitted to put that condition on the recommendation. Therefore, officers would like to add to the recommendation one further condition that requires details of screening to the rear patio to be submitted for approval and then installed thereafter.

Additionally, the Council's Environmental Health team have written to officers informing them that there is an increase in light disturbance complaints from residents. However, the presence and positioning of internal lighting doesn't fall within planning control.

Where artificial lighting does cause an unreasonable disturbance, that is something which is covered by the Environmental Protection Act. Therefore, officers don't consider that this has any material impact on the planning assessment.

A Parish Councillor spoke against the application.

A Ward Councillor also spoke against the application.

A member of the public, Mr. Sullivan also spoke against the application.

The applicant, Mr. Shah spoke in support of the application.

Members of the Committee raised concerns around the extent of front glazing, increased height and prominent corner location with the proposal being out of character. Members also requested comments from officers on the raised patio.

The officer informed the Committee that there were comments about lots of water flows through the area because of the sloping topography, therefore it is not unusual to have a raised patio in this context. Planning permission has been granted to a neighbouring property, 24 or 22, where there will be raised patios.

The raised patio in this case is in a different position on the plot compared to the existing one; it is further back as a result of the lay of the land, and the judgment in the report is that it's not harmful, subject to a condition requiring screening, and that screening would probably be integrated into the boundary fencing.

It is likely to be sufficient to mean there's no overlooking from that patio over to the adjacent neighbour.

Members requested further information on the parking spaces and garage, and whether there will be a condition, if the application were to be approved, for the garage to be permanently maintained for parking purposes.

The officer confirmed that there isn’t a condition on the recommendation on the paper, and if Members wanted to put that forward, officers can make a note to include a condition to ensure sufficient car parking.

The loss of trees on the boundary was also raised as another concern.

In response to this concern, the officer explained that the trees that are there at the moment are not protected so there's no restrictions to them coming down. There's a lot of vegetation and there's less proposed back in replacement. Officers assessed the landscape impacts on the report and ultimately don't think that it's something that they can sustain as a reason for refusal in its own right.

Councillor Whately-Smith moved, seconded by Councillor Elinor Gazzard, that PLANNING PERMISSION BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions and the additional condition that requires details of screening to the rear patio.

On being put to the Committee the motion failed, the voting being 2 For, 5 Against and 1 Abstention.

Councillor Debbie Morris moved for refusal of the application, seconded by Councillor Philip Hearn, on grounds that the proposed dwelling by virtue of the extent of front glazing, increased height and prominent corner location would result in demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the street scene and area.

On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair, the voting being 5 For, 3 Against and 0 Abstention.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be refused for the following reason:

The proposed replacement dwelling, by reason of the large amount of glazing to the front gable, and the increase in height on this prominent corner plot would result in a development which does not respect the character of the area and would have an adverse impact on the street scene. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies CP1 and CP12 of the Core Strategy (adopted October 2011), and Policy DM1 and Appendix 2 of the Development Management Policies LDD (adopted July 2013) and the NPPF (2023).